‘Trust but verify’ may apply here

October 23, 2016

Categories:

The Tax Court ruled on a case in December that involved falsified documents, deception and forgery – perpetrated by the wife.

The wife’s tangled web included:

Submitting falsified requests to withdraw funds from her husband’s IRAs

Forging her husband’s signature to endorse the distribution checks

Depositing the funds into a joint account that only she used

Using the proceeds for her personal benefit

The husband did not find out until the next year. The Tax Court said the husband was not required to include the distributions in his gross income and was not liable for the additional tax on early distributions.

Andrew Roberts and his wife, Cristie Smith, maintained two joint checking accounts. Although the accounts were titled in joint name, Roberts exclusively used one account, and Smith exclusively used the other account.

Roberts did not have a checkbook for, write checks on or make withdrawals from Smith’s account, and he didn’t receive or review the bank statements. He didn’t know about, authorize or benefit from any deposits into, or withdrawals from, Smith’s account.

The custodians of Roberts’s two IRAs received requests with his forged signature, faxed from Smith’s workplace, to withdraw approximately $37,000 from his IRAs. Roberts did not make or authorize the requests.

Checks were sent pursuant to the withdrawal request, the endorsement was forged, and the checks were deposited into Smith’s joint account that she maintained separately from Roberts. The court inferred that Smith (or someone on her behalf) forged Roberts’s signature on the distribution requests and endorsements.

Roberts first learned of the unauthorized withdrawals when he received Forms 1099-R, Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., early in the following year. By the time Roberts had determined Smith’s involvement, the couple was already involved in a divorce proceeding.

Roberts advised the trial court of what had happened, and the court’s decree of dissolution took into account that Smith had withdrawn the funds.

Throughout their marriage, Smith prepared and filed a joint income tax return with Roberts. In early 2009, Roberts, although separated from Smith, discussed with her the preparation and filing of a joint income tax return for 2008. He understood from that conversation that he and Smith would still file a joint return.

Roberts gave his tax information to Smith so that she could prepare the 2008 joint return. However, Smith prepared and filed separate returns, using married filing separate filing status for herself and single filing status for Roberts.

On Roberts’s return, Smith made several errors, including not reporting the IRA withdrawals as income. Roberts’s return showed a refund that had been electronically deposited into the joint account controlled by Smith. She did not show Roberts the return or give him a copy, despite his asking for one.

Upon examination, the IRS argued that Roberts should have reported the withdrawals as taxable distributions because he was the owner of the IRAs and the person entitled to receive distributions, the distributions were deposited into a joint account, and they went toward “family living expenses.” The IRS also found it significant that Roberts never attempted to return the funds to the IRAs or contest the distributions once he discovered the payments.

Roberts claimed that he was not a payee or distributee of the funds because the IRA withdrawals were made pursuant to forged requests, the checks were stolen, the endorsement signatures were forged, and he had received no economic benefit.

The Tax Court concluded, based on common sense as well as its finding of fact and analysis, that Roberts was not a payee or distributee of the funds. The court noted that, although it has held that the distributee or payee of an IRA distribution is “generally” the participant or beneficiary entitled to receive the distribution, it has rejected the claim that the recipient is “automatically” the distributee.

The court also found that Roberts’s failure to timely pursue a state law remedy did not necessarily mean that he had received a taxable distribution from his IRA accounts. Thus, on the basis of the overall facts, the court concluded that Roberts did not fail to report any income attributable to the IRA distributions. Because the withdrawals were not distributions taxable to Roberts, he was not liable for the additional tax on early withdrawals.

However, the court ruled against Roberts on the issue of filing status. It reasoned that, because Roberts and Smith were still married on Dec. 31, 2008, and were not separated for the last six months of the year, the proper filing status was married filing separately.

The court also held that, to the extent that the final computations showed that his understatement of tax exceeded the greater of 10 percent of the tax required to be shown on the return or $5,000, Roberts would be liable for a substantial underpayment penalty (Andrew W. Roberts v. Commissioner, 141 TC No. 19, Dec. 30, 2013).